PL mount Nikkor 17-35mm T2.8 - Do you want one?

[Simon Baechler]

Hi

I was talking to the lens tech at our rental house. A few years ago he rehoused a Nikkor 17-35mm Zoom for use with 35mm cameras. The lens is very nice. The focus gear has been reversed so it is correct for PL and there are precision markings for focus, zoom and f-stop. The focus rotation is about 120°. Personally I think this should be more. Maybe he can improve that.

You can read more about the photo-version of the lens here.

I asked him if he would make a small series and he was seriously considering it. If there are enough people interested he would make a small series. The more units the lower the price.

This poll is to see if there are enough people interested in buying one if Megarent would make them.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

I would be interested if the price is right... However, I have to say that the RED 18-50 is as good or better than what we'll probably get with the re-housed 17-35.

But let's see who is interested and how much.

 

[Steve Sherrick]

Questions:
1. How much?
2. Turnaround time?
3. How big is it when rehoused?
4. Hard stops?

Steve

 

[Simon Baechler]

The price depends heavily on the number of lenses. I've asked him to calculate a target price for a series of 50 lenses. I will have that next week.

I don't know about turnaround time. The original lens took one year to make but now all the calculations are done. But be aware that this is still a rental house and he also has to take care of the cameras that go out. So if there are less shoots on film he will have more time to make lenses...

The lens is about the same size as the original 18-35. Just wider because of the mount and gear. It's quite a bit larger than the RED 18-55 but it is still a very compact zoom compared to other 35mm zoom lenses.

It doens't have hard stops. The whole iris gear had to be custom made because on the original lens it is controlled by a motor.

 

[Finner]

interested in prices when they come. Hard stops in the rehouse are a must

 

[Shawn Nelson]

Wouldn't it have to be significantly cheaper than the Red Zoom for this to be worth it? It has half the focal range, is not faster, and yet is bigger. It seems it'd need to be $4500 USD or below to be worth it. Otherwise, why bother?

 

[Finner]

Red lens does not hold focus through the zoom range. Hence why there is no hard focus marks on the lens.

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

Nikkor 17-35mm T2.8 is the best between 20-22mm, to go wider betweem 18 and 20 you get a bit (or a lot in 4K) of CA and distortion.

Just print a sample in Super A3 format on glossy photo paper and then you can see all bad stuff clearly.

Between 24-35 you can find MUCH MUCH better primes from Nikon, Leica, Zeiss, Canon or even Sigma.

 

[Simon Baechler]

interested in prices when they come. Hard stops in the rehouse are a must

What do you mean by hard stops?

 

[Finner]

It doens't have hard stops. The whole iris gear had to be custom made because on the original lens it is controlled by a motor.

Hard stops in the rehouse are a must

What do you mean by hard stops?

Are we having the same conversation? I don't know how to be more clear then this. I am not trying to be a jerk so please don't take it that way I just do not know what you are having trouble understanding.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Red lens does not hold focus through the zoom range. Hence why there is no hard focus marks on the lens.

The Nikon 17-35 doesn't hold focus through the zoom range either. It drifts slightly, but enough to notice, especially at 4K.

Wouldn't it have to be significantly cheaper than the Red Zoom for this to be worth it? It has half the focal range, is not faster, and yet is bigger. It seems it'd need to be $4500 USD or below to be worth it. Otherwise, why bother?

I agree. I would think 2800 Euro is about the upper limit for a lens like this (that would be a bit under $4200). Any more than that and you may as well just buy the RED 18-50.

And yes, the barrel rotations would ideally be converted to operate the same direction as cine lenses. Hard stops (like Finner said) and a longer throw are a must for the focus ring. Those two factors are the reasons I want to see this lens re-housed. Without those, I may as well just use it with a RED or Birger Nikon mount and move on with my life... If I even decide I want to swap mounts just for that lens when I could use the RED 18-50 or rent something phenomenal like the Arri LWZ 15.5-45.

 

[Steve Sherrick]

And yes, the barrel rotations would ideally be converted to operate the same direction as cine lenses. Hard stops (like Finner said) and a longer throw are a must for the focus ring. Those two factors are the reasons I want to see this lens re-housed. Without those, I may as well just use it with a RED or Birger Nikon mount and move on with my life... If I even decide I want to swap mounts just for that lens when I could use the RED 18-50 or rent something phenomenal like the Arri LWZ 15.5-45.

Exactly!

 

[donatello b]

perhaps the lens to compare this to would be the century 17-35mm at 15k.
i believe years ago they used a minolta lens and now in past few years a canon to convert ..
i've seen the lens and the mechanics are excellent. it holds focus zooming and i didn't see any breathing in the 4ft -50ft range ..didn't see any in the 20-infinity either .. it feels solid ..IMO better built conversion then red 18-50 and it cost 8500 so i better get something for the extra $$ ..however i can't say one has a better image ...

 

[Simon Baechler]

The lens has a geared iris ring like an Ultra Prime or S4. Focus and zoom rings are geared as well.
The iris is marked in 1/3 f-stop increments and focus has little lines, too if you mean this by hard stops.

 

[Fredrik Callinggard]

The Nikon 17-35 doesn't hold focus through the zoom range either. It drifts slightly, but enough to notice, especially at 4K.

I've actually had a conversation with a lens technician who said that it would be quite noticeable and thought that the lens would be an excellent vari-prime, but not a good zoom. Myself I don't know enough about Nikon glass.

fred

 

[Simon Baechler]

Wouldn't it have to be significantly cheaper than the Red Zoom for this to be worth it? It has half the focal range, is not faster, and yet is bigger. It seems it'd need to be $4500 USD or below to be worth it. Otherwise, why bother?

Sigma makes an 18-50mm f/2.8 photo zoom for 389$. The Nikon 17-35mm 2.8 is 1530$. Photographers buy the Nikon and you see why if you look at the images.

If you just want a cheap lens then go with the Red zoom. This lens is for DPs who would buy the Nikon photo lens instead of the cheaper Sigma.

 

[Finner]

The lens has a geared iris ring like an Ultra Prime or S4. Focus and zoom rings are geared as well.
The iris is marked in 1/3 f-stop increments and focus has little lines, too if you mean this by hard stops.

The focus on the still 17-35 does not have hard stops. What this means is that when you hit infinity at the end of the focus travel or minimum focus at the other end the focus will stop there but the barrel continues to spin. This is unacceptable for cine use because if you go past either the close or far focus ends with a follow focus and it keeps spinning your marks on the FF disc will no longer line up.

 

[Simon Baechler]

The focus on the still 17-35 does not have hard stops. What this means is that when you hit infinity at the end of the focus travel or minimum focus at the other end the focus will stop there but the barrel continues to spin. This is unacceptable for cine use because if you go past either the close or far focus ends with a follow focus and it keeps spinning your marks on the FF disc will no longer line up.

In that case the focus barrel has hard stops. As far as I could see the focus rotation is about twice the original rotation. Which is still not much between 1m and infinity. Maybe there is room to increase the focus rotation further.

 

[Matt Uhry]

the 17-35 is nice but kind of old news... Can your guy take a look at the 14-24 f2.8 ? That would rock, and not compete with any other existing rehoused lenses...

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

"The Nikon 14-24mm is a G lens, meaning Nikon removed the aperture ring to save costs."

And to install a new aperture ring in the rehoused lens would cost more that US $ 5.000.

The price could be minimum about 10K.

Look ma - no aperture ring!

LINK>>>